[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: jboske@yahoogroups.com*Subject*: Re: OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)*From*: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>*Date*: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:33:07 -0500 (EST)*In-reply-to*: <20030114010827.GC45648@allusion.net> from "Jordan DeLong" at Jan 13, 2003 07:08:27 PM

Jordan DeLong scripsit: > > That's Cantor's paradox: the set of all sets must contain its power set > > as a member, which is impossible. The whole point of Quine abstraction > > is that it's eliminable *without* reifying over sets. > > I dunno what 'eliminable' means. You can rewrite all talk of Quine abstraction in terms of pure quantified logic without introducing any sets that are the values of variables. So the pseudo-set x^ = {x | x is even} is just Ax: x is even. -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)***From:*Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>

**References**:**OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)***From:*Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [jboske] The compromise of uncomprehension** - Next by Date:
**Re: [jboske] Re: Counting Nick** - Previous by thread:
**OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)** - Next by thread:
**Re: OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)** - Index(es):